Operational Discussion

[Charles22]

By the way, given of our uncertainty about this latest patch, I just thought of something related to my "why you went mobile" speel, it is this. I don't know what we were talking about before, but recall how you mentioned for what seemed like the first time where you were in your campaigns, and I was surprised these weren't new ones? The same could be said, interestingly enough about your mobility change. IOW, you changed seemingly due to running from arti, and probably some mor eminor additonal factors, but chew on this a while, and forgive me if I brought this up before, but the arti routine has been changed. It's likke it was on the patch 2 patches before this one. In the nexy to the last version something screwed up there, I think it was the ability of the aI to pick overwhelming amounts of arti. Understand, the arti looks the same for my thus far limited play, but I never even bothered playing on the next to the last patch when I heard about what arti bug it had. So you might want to look at the latest fixes and figure out if your taking in the last patch will affect the arti fix in your current campaigns or not. It would be wild if it changed each time your campaigns each time you patched, if you had been through all three versions.

I noticed the "listed fixes" included this:

5) On map Arty command units have been removed from the list of units able to act as spotters. They can no longer call indirect artillery missions which was allowing an arty cheat that existed back to SP2

I don't think the bug I saw they said they had fixed pre-patch, was listed there. It seems much more significant than the one above. I assume they fixed it and didn't list it. I found another bug they fixed that they didn't list a few days ago too.

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Charles22

I noticed the "listed fixes" included this:

5) On map Arty command units have been removed from the list of units able to act as spotters. They can no longer call indirect artillery missions which was allowing an arty cheat that existed back to SP2

This was to fix an odd bug where, through a series of plotting artillery, cancelling artillery and then using the artillery command unit to plot it again, you could get it to fall with zero delay. I don't remember the exact steps, but I tested it and it was definitely a bug.

The patch won't be a factor, because I quit the old campaign and started a new one. My core is now only about 2,900 points since they are in their first battle. I'm still looking for the same general core model, but didn't have the points to get there right now. One tank company, two panzer grenadier companies (w/trucks), FOOs, ATGs and scouts. No artillery, anti-aircraft and resupply right now. Artillery and resupply came out of support points and I went without AAA.

[Charles22]

RERomine:

This is incorrect. Four SPAA units typically cover one tank platoon and four SPAAs cover two SS infantry companies, so the armor receives proportionally more protection. But as you said, they don't have riders. What would you protect more, infantry in tracks or Tigers and Panthers with somewhere close to 1,000 kills? I know the answer to that. Even with out the kills, the tanks are just more valuable assets. I have to provide the infantry and tracks with some protection, however so each company gets two SPAAs.

You're still not getting it. Now I didn't realize part of your SPAA was guarding one mere tank platoon, but I'm telling you should be protecting ALL your armor, not just that one platoon -and- taking that mostly pointless (as used) infantry SPAA and give it to the armor. Total armored protection; no infantry protection. If I wany a novelty AA for the infantry, maybe some towed AA.

I don't do anything radical with air defense. If my core moves in mass, SPAAs take up position on the main body flanks and rear. If they have to break up differently to accomplish the mission, I adjust the coverage based on what is available. One infantry company with only two SPAAs obviously can't have them on both flanks and the rear since there just aren't enough

Understood.

Yes!!! One of the reasons I don't use air strikes much is I find them to be as much a risk to my forces as the AIs forces. It's bad enough to lose a tank, but it's worse to lose one to your own plane. The AI, on the other hand, seems to rarely have blue on blue attacks. It is very deadly with it's air strikes. They are worse than artillery.

I know what you mean, but I doubt I will abandon them. I have had maybe a total of 20 FB strikes on this new patch, and maybe a couple of them on my own guys. That's real good though, as I'm sure you know. I think there's a way to make self-beating almost non-existent, but it takes time to figure out how, Natrually that means you certainly can't hit frontal areas much if you have units within 7 hexes or fewer. I suppose 10 or more hexes away is fairly safe, depending on aerial angle.

I see AI aircraft about 20% of the time, but it has infantry and machine guns all of the time. The infantry is safer in the tracks. Of the 20% of the times I see them, probably half are on defend missions and the infantry is in entrenchments or fire pits anyhow. When they are in tracks, it's only to get to into attack position so they really are dismounted most of the time. They can't do their main job unless they dismount.

Just for clarity, the infantry stays dismounted until they actually need to move out. I've lost too many infantry units sitting in tracks to artillery while waiting at the LD.

I don't see how you can say an infantry is safer in an open-tooped vehicle than on foot (concerning air strikes. Even IRL that isn't so. You have 12 guys crammed together, with often the easiest part to hit from the air, the top, being fully exposed. Before you say it, "no, they hit the sides", I will ask you why so many AFV's get lost to air strikes, and I will give you a clue, it's not because the air strike hit the side armor. Now there are 'some' topped HT's in the game, but I dont' think Gerry has any, unless it's for a reduced squad only (6 men or less). I think you have this "riders don't suffer enough on tanks" influencing you here. Besides, appealing to your rider common sense again, apply it here, though it would doubtlessly be more painful. Just why are they more safe? It makes no sense.

It seems the unrealism you see in riders is also commonplace with passengers of HT's as well. In my case, I accept that "if" riders, my main form of mobility, are inadequately treated in losses, nevermind that they almost never get fired upon that way in my case, then I have not a lot of choice if I wish to mobilize my infantry some (besides, it's not like the AI doesn't do it also). The same could easily be said, when you have just stated they're safer from air attack by "being on an HT". That just doesn't make sense. I personally think you're wrong, that they are considerably more vulnerable (if hit), but you're completely at the mercy of the AI should that air attack come at that HT. It doesn't matter where it is. Now if you want to say, that you're infantry is better off because they can get away easily from an arti attack than on foot, well that's a no-brainer, but to say they're safer against an air strike they can't hide from, which in our example IS going to hit them anyway doesn't add up. Ironic too, if you have been speaking as I interpeted you, is like I said before, the fact of Air strike priorities. IF your HT is laden, the air has MORE reason to attack it, successful or not, than it does unladen, for seperate units are far harder to kill with one plane and are two less costly units, but hitting something laden offers the chance of knocking out multiple units. Considering that, ironically, if you had told me your tanks are protected better by having laden HT's, it would had made more sense, buy wouldn't had sounded like it did. Because when that HT is laden it's a more valuable target, therefore making it less likely the tanks get targeted.

now that I have made that point, the rest of your message sounds as though you might agree with those conclusions, but we are coming from two different type of arial attacks here. To me, if you really meant and indeed were being attacked by MG-only air, well, you're still in worse trouble if you're open-topped, but realize for one thing, that I wasn't thinking on those terms of that tpye of aircraft. To me, those types are mere gnats and aren't worth bothering about, but I would still say they're worse for being in the HT, but you do seem to at least acknowledge the infantry should be grounded most of the time if possible. But, now cosider the angle of approach I had. I was describing air as I would use it, that is, FB's, which I thoguht the AI used alot of, in preference, as it should be, to mere MG-only fighters. Now I realize that technically the ME110 had MG's only or the one I use anyway, but there's maybe 6 AP rounds there, sufficient to rip though any HT armor, top or otherwise. I'm not sure out of each gun, just how many AP's are used on a hard target, either 1 or 2 I would imagine, such that it can achieve exactly what I buy them for: the hope of multiple passes with ammo able to rip through the top of most any AFV, but it is a different beast than many of the early war fighters who have no AP rounds.

I'm also not at all sure just what an AP-less fighter could do should hit the open top with or without being laden. If you are impressed by side armor, as I was once, that you think the AP-less won't be a btoher because such a high percentage of the Ht is armored, then you have to take into consideration what I said about the ratio of top hits. I cannot begin to tell you how that works on HT's but I would hope, if it were my HT, that it wouldn't create the same effect that when a truck is hit anywhere; it just might. How does it work when hit? From what I said earlier bears in mind here a swell, since you are playing PBEM too, part of what you're getting "isn't" the same as I'm seeing. In this case a lot of what you seen may be your PBEM'er targeting differently than campaign AI with his air, and subsequently if the subject is AI air, it can skew your vision somewhat, but seeing as how I can't recall the last HT being aerially attacked, perhaps you should elaborate?

Whether on foot or with transport, as long as the units keep moving, AI artillery isn't a great risk. It does a great job of firing where we've been and not where we are. Added speed allows me more operational variations. Speed helps greatly on assault missions. From the point you start clearing mines, you have about 3-4 turns before the AI start hitting the area with artillery. On your large map, the AI mines should be more scattered, but on the 100x100 map with the value of my core there is always a minefield from top to bottom. There is no going around it. It has to be breached. Now, I could just move back and wait until the AI finishes the barrage, but I usually just try to get through.

Alright.

Quite correct. The bottom line is does it work. Sounds like your way works for you and mine works for me. My tactics may change based on who I'm fighting and the terrain. I've done lots of different things, dismounted attacks, air assaults, mobile defenses, flanking maneuvers, etc. I've also got PBEM games against people going. No tanks or tracks. Just infantry, guns and mortars. Truck transport for the guns and mortars because you have to move them. People will counter battery fire much more frequently than the AI will.

Alright. But let me interject somethine here; a challenge. You spoke earlier of the unrealistic treatment of riders on tanks after being hit, so apparently there's some desire for realism there, so I would like to propose something else to you. no wi realize how you playing two completely different brains, can skew your views. What I bring up is something on my own mind as well, but it's far easier because I will never be playing non-AI's. We discussed the airborne scouts, I'm guessing this has far too large an impact on the AI game, not even having tried it yet. But against non-AI I bet it seems almost a prerequisite, doesn't it? So there's my problem. Isn't it unfair to use airborne scouts, which seemingly can often have a huge effect (relatively easily guiding arti to smite both AA and arti) when the AI NEVER will? When the AI often throws arti into zones miles from anything (nothing we can do about that), doesn't that make this more like a serious cheat? I understand doing it for novelty every blue moon, and I understand it did happen at times, that sort of thing IRL, but, and this is a huge but, the enemy can -and- did do the same sort of thing. We already know the AI cannot. If this is done regularly, it will make things way too easy as I'm seeing it. In frequent use or none at all is what I suggest.

Charles, you are grasping at straws a bit here now. Do you think that the German army which fielded millions of men didn't have enough half-tracks to mount two infantry companies? Rationally, you would similarly equip companies in the same battalion with similar equipment so they can continue to function as a unit. It's only as fast as it's slowest unit. But if you want a name, I would suspect Kampfgruppe Peiper during the Battle of the Bulge would qualify. This brigade had 4,800 men and 600 vehicles. That one vehicle for every 8 men. On December 24th, when Kampfgruppe Peiper was finally destroyed, allies captured their remaining equipment in La Gleize: 28 tanks, 70 half-tracks, and 25 artillery pieces. I don't think it's a big leap of faith to conclude there were more half-tracks than just 70 in the brigade, so squeezing out 28 to mount two companies wouldn't be difficult.

Artillery has it's moments. Sometimes it's a real killer and sometimes it just makes tooth picks out of trees no where close to me. While I don't remember the exact details, that battle I keep referring to where I had AP ammo problems, I lost only 20 men and had a couple of damaged tanks. Destroying 179 tanks and armored cars and inflicting over 600 casualties was a nice return for my efforts. Since my casualties were so low and my force was relatively static being the battle was a delay, I can only conclude artillery wasn't a factor in that battle. There was a note that I only lost 29 men and no tanks in the battle before, so artillery probably wasn't a factor in that one as well. Either that or I just handled it well.

Germany not fielding two companies of men in HT's? Of course not, but for the rider realists out there, I'm sure the same could be said there (I'm not referring to you with that remark). In either case both sets weren't spending all their travel time in them, if that's any consolation.

It's intersting that your mobile example was an infiltration unit. Is this to say your entire outfit is a Steiner formation? I guess my asking about making things too easy with airborne scouts will hit a resounding thud then. I'm starting to question now, just how you should think that anything anyone could do against the AI is off-linits, or should be, when you I'm starting to think you're as bad or worse. Again, I symphathise with your PBEM play compromising what otherwise would be mcuh clearer to you against the AI. I'm not sure you should even suggest that a high map is too difficlt for the AI (not that you would know personally) in my case then, but for the sake of learning I carry on. I think I more than adequately how the Ai is compensated for their alleged weakness in that matter. Whether it's sufficient or not, by the means of on the field results, apparently only I could say at this point.

Okay, so you have seen some arti lapses anyway running counter to your fear of them at some point. BTW, on one meeting engagement I had, back in the SPWAW days, I actually had a complete shutout of the enemy. Funny thing too, because I had some pretty good arti on me, and I guess I just never lost a man to it. I wasn't trying for a hutout, and probably would be hugely difficult to try, would hav eprobably throw some huge gamey concepts in to achieve it on even a semi-regualr basis; it just happened. Actually to see points lost down to less than 25 is a pretty big shocker too. I guess with a 3300pt force, it's pretty regular to lose 100pts. I guess if you never tried to give heavy pursuit to the eenmy it would come much easier, but i have always been into the destructive angle if it seemed to profit me.

In the same manner that the FOO doesn't fight, but has a useful role, the same applies to scouts. They can serve as additional eyes for your unit. A set of eyes that can get closer to AI units without getting shot at most of the time. Once you have spotted the AI units, you can deal with them as you see fit: artillery, tanks, infantry, airstrikes. The other option is you spot them with some other unit only after the AI unit shoots at you. Think of them as a life insurance policy for your more expensive core units.

Yes, that's why I often see them as expendable. I don't want them ever destroyed, but one or two losses in men I anticipate.

I missed that, but I didn't have any infantry in the area. It really wasn't critical, however because I hand MkIVs and Tigers outside of the woods. I just wasn't going to run my tanks in looking for other tank. It was just a bonus that the scouts got the kills, but if they hadn't, my tanks would have.

Well that's good, because I was starting to wonder if you were some kind of scout as ubermen fanatic or if you had used them enough to learn some unintended trick.

I guess I should clarify this a touch more. My scout backs up because I typically hit infantry encountered this way with artillery. My objective is to save the scout. There are many other options available, however. You could just keep the scout in place and engage the spotted infantry with direct fire from tanks. The scout will be safe from that. Another option could be to start working the scout around the spotted infantry unit. He's been spotted, so there's no benefit to keeping the scout there watching it and you may not have the ability to engage it immediately with artillery or direct fire. With scouts, once you an AI unit close, always move one less than the maximum and the scout will more than likely remain hidden. It's pretty easy to do. Just be patient with it. Since you are use to working with dismounted units, I don't suspect this will be a problem.

True.

No, they don't resupply any faster with more experience. Experience only helps reduce suppression from attack and aids in rallying suppression.

Ah, so ammo trucks, which are so easily destroyed, if hit, are as useless in core as I thought. Most of the time, any wise player would have them so far removed from direct fire, that only arti can reach them, I can tell you from a support ammo feeding my 4 IG's constantly, that should arti come their way, there's virtually no way they survive. Even if they do survive, and we're talking about a guy who had 40 more horizontal hexes than you do, there's so much territory behind a well-placed unit, that routing off the board should be all but impossible; especially if we're talking GE ammo's. Early USSR ammo's OTOH.....retreat before the arti gets there.

Experience doesn't increase road speed. As mentioned, it will help reduce suppression, aid in rallying, increase shots per turn, increase accuracy and increase spotting ability. There may be some others. Resupply is much more critical if you have highly experienced units, because their number of shots increases, but the ammo payload does not. My Tigers, firing 8 shots per turn can go through their ammo fairly quickly. There's nothing worse than a highly experienced unit with an empty gun.

I see what you mean, but the reverse is true to soem extent as well. In the overall battle, if the Tiger destroys everything withthe 1st shot, then there's less call for ammo. IOW, the experience to much more easily destroy the target, due to increased accuracy, demands less shots to get the kill. So overall the very experienced uses considerably less total ammo than his less experienced bretherin, but in probaly quicker time. Of course, there are ways to adjust that too, despite that we're often in the attitude emptying those AP shells is the primary task. One could, for example, fire that first 6 rounds of such a tank as tAP shots, and then especially if the last AP shot registered a kill (despite how many kills there were before that) fire a couple of HE shots at something. in that sense it would use up the AP ammo in the 70exp rate, but with much more accuracy, and then a small HE bonus in comparison.

Despite my fixation for firing as soon as I think my rounds can possibly penetrate I almost never will fire the last main gun shot off at such targets. The thought is that doing such would often be a waste. It will probably re-target to something else anyway during the AI turn, and that allows one more reactive shot for whatever good that's worth. The last main gun shot being used on a new target, if it should be used, is probably better off being saved for reaction or to slow an infantry unit. There's little ways in incidents such as those to save AP ammo (though it being fired in reaction would still tally one more round used). I'm sure quite a number of people wait till they see the whites in their eyes strategy, which of course would often save rounds. Of course the ultimate way to save heavy re-supply needs is to have more units destroyed (your own). You hit more accurately and destructively you save ammo, you get hit more accurately and destructively there's less for the ammo truck to do too.

It's this pansying around with commanders saying "nyah nyah" as they stick their tongues out, because neither side is causing destruction that is the real problem. Of course, not firiing achieves the same thing.

I wonder if anybody has ever gone through the ludicrous extreme of having destroyed the entire enemy force, and they had won having only one unit left themselves (talking originally both forces being sizeable)?

[RERomine]

Originally Posted by Charles22

RERomine:

You're still not getting it. Now I didn't realize part of your SPAA was guarding one mere tank platoon, but I'm telling you should be protecting ALL your armor, not just that one platoon -and- taking that mostly pointless (as used) infantry SPAA and give it to the armor. Total armored protection; no infantry protection. If I wany a novelty AA for the infantry, maybe some towed AA.

I confused the issue here with a mistake, by saying platoon instead of company. All of my armor is protected by four SPAAs as well as they can protect them. SPAAs protecting infantry will still shoot at anything that comes into range, so just because the other four SPAAs escort tracked infantry doesn't mean they still don't protect the tanks. The reverse is true also.

I don't see how you can say an infantry is safer in an open-tooped vehicle than on foot (concerning air strikes. Even IRL that isn't so. You have 12 guys crammed together, with often the easiest part to hit from the air, the top, being fully exposed. Before you say it, "no, they hit the sides", I will ask you why so many AFV's get lost to air strikes, and I will give you a clue, it's not because the air strike hit the side armor. Now there are 'some' topped HT's in the game, but I dont' think Gerry has any, unless it's for a reduced squad only (6 men or less). I think you have this "riders don't suffer enough on tanks" influencing you here. Besides, appealing to your rider common sense again, apply it here, though it would doubtlessly be more painful. Just why are they more safe? It makes no sense.

Just for sake of clarity and agreement, yes dismounted infantry is safer than being in tracks, open topped or not. If the battle threat was that one dimensional, life would be much easier. There are concerns about artillery and small arms fire to consider as well and they occur more often than air strikes. Now, you may have your game set so air strikes happen every battle. If that is the case, we are talking two very different situations.

It seems the unrealism you see in riders is also commonplace with passengers of HT's as well. In my case, I accept that "if" riders, my main form of mobility, are inadequately treated in losses, nevermind that they almost never get fired upon that way in my case, then I have not a lot of choice if I wish to mobilize my infantry some (besides, it's not like the AI doesn't do it also)...

The unrealism aspect is in the game model and not reality. I know troops rode on tanks and have done it myself. If the only choice you have in your game is to ride, then by all means do it. I've done it in my game, but it's been more the exception than the rule. Typically, if I have no tracks close by and a leg unit has been blasted to bits and is almost done, I will use whatever I have to ride it quickly to a safe spot to save it. Tanks have served this purpose before when not involved in a fire fight. From the game perspective, it seems like you have just as much of a chance of surviving small arms fire on a tank as you would in a half-track. That just defies logic. If someone was shooting at you, would you want to be IN the armored box, even if the top is open, or ON it?

With respect to open topped vehicles, half-track or otherwise, you don't need AP to kill them if you get a top hit. FBs with HE can do it. An infantry squad on a hill firing down into it can do it. I've destroyed half-tracks with rifles this way. AP is only needed if you need significant armor penetration. Larger HE rounds can penetrate armor as well. A FB with HE rounds, it really would depend on the size of the round. You might still get penetration out of a 30mm HE round. I don't know for sure without checking.

Ah, so ammo trucks, which are so easily destroyed, if hit, are as useless in core as I thought...

In the manner you use them, they may be. The way I use them, they are useful. A general rule if thumb I use is, if they (any unit type) die all the time, they ARE useless. I ask you this, what is the penalty of having a non-combatant in your core? Does it take experience from a unit that would otherwise deserve it? If it does, you would have to prove it and I don't think there is any way to do so unless Andy or Don can confirm it one way or another. Your core is small enough that it's not taking up space that another unit would use. If you want the other combatant, just add it. Would your core be less deadly because of an ammo truck in it? No. If it was 100 tanks or 100 tanks and an ammo truck, you still have 100 tanks, no matter how you slice it. The ammo truck doesn't dull the effectiveness of your blade. It's just personal preference.

I see what you mean, but the reverse is true to soem extent as well. In the overall battle, if the Tiger destroys everything withthe 1st shot, then there's less call for ammo...

True, but with more experience, the AI will get more forces. You will have more targets to engage and consequently use more ammo. I don't know if it balances out or not. Your experience is such that you fire twice as fast and are twice as accurate, but face twice as many targets. If that's how it works, it balances out. Now, if you fire twice as fast and are only 50% more accurate, but still have twice as many targets, it won't balance. Unless you want to spend a lot of time testing it, you just have to get a feel for how it works. The Tiger isn't a good example in this case anyhow because they have a lot of ammo.

[Charles22]

RERomine:

I confused the issue here with a mistake, by saying platoon instead of company. All of my armor is protected by four SPAAs as well as they can protect them. SPAAs protecting infantry will still shoot at anything that comes into range, so just because the other four SPAAs escort tracked infantry doesn't mean they still don't protect the tanks. The reverse is true also.

Mistake, okay. Place your AA as you please, but I'm telling you it's being wasted that way; true, it's not completely useless for protecting the tanks, but it could be a LOT more useful for protecting those AFV's. So while my early HT's seem to have pathetic AA ability, I'm not so sure you think that of yours. It's so pathetic that I easily forget that's not just a typical MG on there. So, if it's true you think you really gain anything in that way with those AA's, shouldn't that be sufficient, particularly for advances for infantry AA?

Just for sake of clarity and agreement, yes dismounted infantry is safer than being in tracks, open topped or not. If the battle threat was that one dimensional, life would be much easier. There are concerns about artillery and small arms fire to consider as well and they occur more often than air strikes. Now, you may have your game set so air strikes happen every battle. If that is the case, we are talking two very different situations.

Well it isn't me that is protecting infantry with AA. I'm not sure how I got it anymore, but you did seem awfully concerned about HT's protecting infantry from air and arti strikes. Naturally, I told you how HT's have no worries from strikes pretty much, but more worries if laden. As far as air strike regularity, I don't know, I'm going default with everything but the map and my force size (increased 10% over the default). My meeting engagement had 4 air wings available, if I wanted, against Poland. The AI can go really hogwild with AA at times, so I certainly wouldn't increase AI air beyond the default.

The unrealism aspect is in the game model and not reality. I know troops rode on tanks and have done it myself. If the only choice you have in your game is to ride, then by all means do it. I've done it in my game, but it's been more the exception than the rule. Typically, if I have no tracks close by and a leg unit has been blasted to bits and is almost done, I will use whatever I have to ride it quickly to a safe spot to save it. Tanks have served this purpose before when not involved in a fire fight. From the game perspective, it seems like you have just as much of a chance of surviving small arms fire on a tank as you would in a half-track. That just defies logic. If someone was shooting at you, would you want to be IN the armored box, even if the top is open, or ON it?

With respect to open topped vehicles, half-track or otherwise, you don't need AP to kill them if you get a top hit. FBs with HE can do it. An infantry squad on a hill firing down into it can do it. I've destroyed half-tracks with rifles this way. AP is only needed if you need significant armor penetration. Larger HE rounds can penetrate armor as well. A FB with HE rounds, it really would depend on the size of the round. You might still get penetration out of a 30mm HE round. I don't know for sure without checking.

Yes... but the tank typically has thicker armor (irrepective of how the game uses this) so "some" of the men, the minority anyway, would be protected by the turret. OTOH, anything, whether it hit the HT or not, that sounded ominuous, often would be enough to get the guys to bolt out. So while some of the riders of the tank might realize that angle of direct fire from the attacker, and therefore jump off (though some would jump off regardless) there are some if the squad commander would allow it, to be protected by the turret.

IOW, in one case there is no confidence in the protection of one, while the other in a limited degree would do the opposite. The difference is even more profound if we were talking the entire vehicle. Other than the tank possibly exploding, the tank, even if fairly thin-skinned, can provide really good direct-fire protection, though it obviously would be better on the ground than behind the turret. The HT on the other, is almost just as vulnerable to cause direct-fire harm to the passengers, whether they're in the HT or hiding behind it. It's just that undependable. It also is probably a given that the soldiers are more likely to stick close to the tank, whereas with the HT they are more likely to scatter from it. Naturally, if the HT has some respectable gun, say a 75mm, they could be more prone to hang closer.

Maybe the former treatment of riders (and who knows about the current treatment?) was to justify the fact that soldiers could hide behind many tanks relatively safely and that's why the losses to both AFV passengers looked the same. As well, there might had been a rider-friendly element of users who pushed and made some sense for riders not to suffer too greatly? I wouldn't say it was that protection by the frame of the tank was really used a great deal, but it wan't ignored either. As the game is set up, there is no way a squad can be protected by a tank hull, even in the same hex, so maybe that was another reason to move towards what is arguably too much protection of riders. The problem becomes more difficult if we are talking about direct HE fire on a ridered tank.

Oh yes, about the HT taking a top hit. I think part of what I was saying was that even if the HT were hit elsewhere, the FB's would cook it, due to the side armor being so weak too, and as you point out, some of the HE rounds could do that too. Of course I was talking about FB's because as I was explaining I was thinking for some reason the AI wouldn't even bother with ordinary fighters, but even ordinary fighters, should I see them only on a support screen, without looking indepth, might seem to my eyes to just have junky HE rounds, when in fact they may not.

In the manner you use them, they may be. The way I use them, they are useful. A general rule if thumb I use is, if they (any unit type) die all the time, they ARE useless. I ask you this, what is the penalty of having a non-combatant in your core? Does it take experience from a unit that would otherwise deserve it? If it does, you would have to prove it and I don't think there is any way to do so unless Andy or Don can confirm it one way or another. Your core is small enough that it's not taking up space that another unit would use. If you want the other combatant, just add it. Would your core be less deadly because of an ammo truck in it? No. If it was 100 tanks or 100 tanks and an ammo truck, you still have 100 tanks, no matter how you slice it. The ammo truck doesn't dull the effectiveness of your blade. It's just personal preference.

Having made that comment, you may now agree that you didn't take me in context, because otherwise you wouldn't be telling me now how useful ammo trucks are in core. Remember where that comment came, my statement was that they were much better used in support, because of any of the numerous reasons I gave, not the least of which from having no worthwhile benefit to the same unit being in support, due to experience neing gained in core could be going to a unit that could use it. naturally, you're Mr. Support, so you have to protect it from the likes of ammo trucks. So the proposition from me wasn't that they were totally useless, as you seem to make out (because I use them improperly allegedly) but that in terms of what you gain from a core unit, they were. Even a truck, another unit I rail against having incore is more useful there, because they "might" survive a hit to some degree. If I thought them truly useless, why would i have them. Let's be more precise here. They're a "waste" in core, but sometimes necessary in support.

We have been though all of this before and I already made it quite clear I thought. For some reason you feel your force lacks so much versatility, as I see it, that you are desparate to protect that support total. A lot more versatility comes when you have total combatants and not lame trucks as par of that core, but go ahead, don't believe me. And I already told you what I do with support, as I'm probably not even using half of it, as in my case I consider the totals available there somewhat embarassing. Adding a whole 33% to my force through support? Just disgusting. Well that's one way to over-protect a core anyway, that your support soaks up most of the fire. I'm not saying you do it for that purpose (lack of versatility you recall) but many have, probably including myself at some part of the distant past. Or perhaps people like innumerable air wings, or perhaps people like tons of easy arti; the excesses can be endless.

Let me see if I can make it plainer to you. You only add to the core when you're unsatisfied with it. For example, I contemplate I might add a pnzrshrk section when they are available. For now, my army isn't versatile enough without a decent bazooka type unit in core. At present there is one ATR, but they're pretty useles for the time being, but coming with the SS platoon I have I had no choice and still get SS. So how does you core's "fighting" versatility increase, by buying what is just as good in support? Go to battle two, no better are your ammo trucks. I buy them in support in both the first and second battle, and they're the same as yours.

The only "slight" advantage to ammo trucks I could see, and this could go for any unit, was if I could buy them singularly in core (assuming I wanted an odd amount of them, like one), but only by twos (as they are now) in support. Therefore I would have to spend less overall on ammo trucks to have them in core. Every turn they would cost me 27pts. instead of 54. Because while I despise having non-combatants in core, I also am aware that the enemy gets the same amount of points against me whereever I buy them. So my overall versatility would "possibly" improve, if I thought (and I'm real close to thinking that in '39), that I'm beter off facing 27pts. less of enemy by having only one ammo truck overall. It would ruin my ethos of only combatants in core, but it would possibly make me overall more effective in that I wouldn't have an extra truck for me that has often been a waste. As we know, the game doesn't allow different formations of the same thing being different between core and support, so it's a moot point anyway. In a sense, that 'is' possible, but there's one place, and one place alone that can occur, and I have already passed it. That is, when you intially pick you core, because I could had picked an ammo truck section with only 27pts left, thereby giving me only one of them total. Weeellll, I guess I will get by with what will sometimes be an extra one.

True, but with more experience, the AI will get more forces. You will have more targets to engage and consequently use more ammo. I don't know if it balances out or not. Your experience is such that you fire twice as fast and are twice as accurate, but face twice as many targets. If that's how it works, it balances out. Now, if you fire twice as fast and are only 50% more accurate, but still have twice as many targets, it won't balance. Unless you want to spend a lot of time testing it, you just have to get a feel for how it works. The Tiger isn't a good example in this case anyhow because they have a lot of ammo.

I think the Tiger FT armor is way too low, but we seem to keep getting that with every wargame anymore. Allied players ***** about the bogeyman Gerry player who unmercifully subjects them to a whole screenload of those unfair beasts! It will be editor for me come Tiger time, and when I play an allied nation, it will stay like I initially changed it to.

[Imp]

I think the Tiger FT armor is way too low, but we seem to keep getting that with every wargame anymore. Allied players ***** about the bogeyman Gerry player who unmercifully subjects them to a whole screenload of those unfair beasts! It will be editor for me come Tiger time, and when I play an allied nation, it will stay like I initially changed it to.

From memory the Tiger is easy as it has a virtualy flat profile for most of it 10 degrees off vetical or something like. Also Allies tested it the armour quality was very good for its day one of the factors that made it so expensive to make. Brinell hardness of about 265 I think, good quality roled plate immune to shatter cracking whatever you want to call it.

Why do I remember stuff like this rather than important stuff
As a thought if every wargame puts it at that to low setting the concensous seems to be its the right one.

[Charles22]

Yeah, well consensus if often pretty ignorant. Look at nazi Germany for example. Also look at the consensus that gave Hitler his edge in other nations, where they were cowardly enough to give away a nation to him, in order to stop a war.

I didn't make the comment to start a "fight for the Tiger" war, it was only checking to see if anyone was aware of it as I was. RERomine, playing Gerry, might be willing to see that point of view.

Oh BTW, Imp, for the sake of the pristine nature that consensus seems to have with you. If you had played Panzer Strike, Kampfgruppe, SP1, SPIII, SPWAW, to name a few, you would know the consensus was for the historic Tiger when SPWAW, the latest of those games, came out. So which consensus is right?